POLYGAMY NOT THERE IN QURAN?
-
Salaam ImamQuranonly.
Salaam brook.
I appreciate the proper language you use in your posts now but would like it better if you did not misinterpret my words.
I have always used "proper language" in my posts, with a few grammatical mistakes here and there, that don't represented my knowledge of grammar, but rather are a result of posting and not taking enough time to proof read. Although that may not be what you are referring to, that is how I will take it because even things I say that you don't like are proper and necessary to me when dealing with certain types of minds.
Trust me, I didn't misunderstand or misinterpret your words, as I will prove below....
Even the author of this errorneous post has said "by divorcing one of your present WIVES". I guess people expose their own falsehoods when trying to go against the words of Allah.
"The author" is only referring to tanveer?s assumption that the man who is mentioned as you in 420 has "multy wives".
First, you are NOT referring to Tanveer's assumption there, but rather your own words in describing what YOU said to support your errorneous theories
This is the contradiction
You claim that polygyny is halaal; which means even if you have multiple wives such as 4 or 3 or 2, you can still have an additional wife without having to divorce one of your present wives. However, God says you have to the prerequisite of exchanging wives (istibdaala zawjin makaana zawj) is making room for the additional wife by divorcing one of your present wives.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayAs you can see, if you understand your own sentence, YOU used that phrase as part of your explanation as to what the prerequisite of exchanging wives is; i.e. "is making room for the additional wife by divorcing one of your present wives". When you start with "However", you are now stating your own conclusions and proofs, not Tanveer's.
Or don't you even understand what you said yourself?
"The author" still holds to his conviction that polygyny is haraam.
A claim that is evident that the author held before studying the issue from Al Quran because of what "the author" considers "an obvious wrong" done to women. So everyone can clearly see that you don't have open eyes when studying these ayaat, but that you have blinders on trying to prove what you consider to be a wrong. Maybe the problem for you is that if you have to accept that Allah allows polygyny in Al Quran, and even ENCOURAGES IT, that you may then lose some of your faith because Allah doesn't conform to your preconceived notions of what is right and wrong. hmm
43 is the only verse claimed to allow polygyny, but even in this forum we have not agreed on it yet. So Tanveer?s claim is nothing but an assumption, which does not guarantee the truth (1036).
43 is not the only verse claimed to allow polygyny. Haven't you see all the ayaat quoted here as further evidence? Or are you blinded to that fact as well? It's not Tanveer's claim. Tanveer, like myself is only pointing out the obvious truth which is Allah's FACT in Al Quran.
It is clear that one can exchange a wife for another if they feel that it is necessary to do so.
Please cite the cases which necessitate it. Can they be necessary enough to ignore God?s warning in the very same verse that you remember a most solemn pledge the bride received from you.
3352
Transliteration La yahillu laka alnnisao min baAAdu wala an tabaddala bihinna min azwajin walaw aAAjabaka husnuhunna illa ma malakat yameenuka wakana Allahu AAala kulli shay-in raqeeban
Literal The women are not permitted/allowed to you from after, and nor that you exchange/replace with them (F) from wives , and even if their goodness/beauty pleased/marveled you, except what your right (hand) owned/possessed, and God was/is on every thing observing/watching .Even though this is clearly addressed to the Prophet, it is clear that to Allah, men can exchange/replace women because of goodness/beauty; and Allah does not condemn this act in itself for ALL believers. What Allah condemns is
419
Transliteration Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la yahillu lakum an tarithoo alnnisaa karhan wala taAAduloohunna litathhaboo bibaAAdi ma ataytumoohunna illa an ya/teena bifahishatin mubayyinatin waAAashiroohunna bialmaAAroofi fa-in karihtumoohunna faAAasa an takrahoo shay-an wayajAAala Allahu feehi khayran katheeran
Literal You, you those who believed, (it) is not permitted/allowed for you that you (P) inherit the women compellingly/forcefully , and do not limit/confine/oppress them (F) to go/take away with some (of) what you gave them (F), except that they (F) come/do/commit with an enormous/atrocious deed evident, and mix/associate/befriend them (F) with the kindness , so if you (P) hated them (F), so maybe/perhaps that you hate a thing and God makes in it much good .and
420
Transliteration Wa-in aradtumu istibdala zawjin makana zawjin waataytum ihdahunna qintaran fala ta/khuthoo minhu shay-an ata/khuthoonahu buhtanan wa-ithman mubeenan
Literal And if you wanted exchanging (to exchange) a spouse (in) place (of a) spouse, and you (P) gave one of them (F) a ton , so do not take from it a thing, do you take it wrongfully/slanderfully, and an evident sin/crime?So while Allah acknowledges that one may divorce a wife to take another, what He says is FORBIDDEN is to take back some of their gifts that you gave them, not exchanging one for another for whatever reason, be it even only for BEAUTY/GOODNESS.
Remember in Al-Ahzaab 7 God says He received the same kind of pledge from all the prophets, misaaqan galleeza. It is that solemn.
If you understand how you are using a pledge here, what you are actually saying is that DIVORCE would then be haraam, not polygyny! o ???
Do you even understand what your assertions really mean?
Does it look right to you that you can take another wife upon a woman who received that misaaqan galeeza from you on the day you married? What would God do if one of His prophets violated that misaaqan galeeza?
Yes it does. Because Allah does allow divorce in Al Quran. He even states all the requirements and procedures for it according to His will, in Al Quran. What you can not do, is to take back some of what you gave the wife unlawfully, that is what Allah FORBIDS. While marrying can be ended by divorce, being a Prophet can not.
Are you accusing Allah of forbidding divorce now in Al Quran according to your understanding here? nope wow
Your use of "misaaqan galeeza" has NOTHING to do with POLYGYNY.
I will try to answer your other arguments later, God willing.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayPlease try harder, because I know that it takes lots of time to come up with arguments to combat the truth. But at least try harder if you want to argue against the truths of Allah in Al Quran. I understand that many truths have been presented that you can't reconcile with your current beliefs. So please continue to confer with your hidden advisor to whom I am sure that you go back and forth with to try to answer these questions. Tell them that they are smart to stay in the background and allow you to continue to bring forth their arguments; they want to maintain their credibility while they test out their errorneous arguments through you.
That being said, I wonder what type of twisting they will send you here with next to combat these obvious truths.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace jedi
-
Salaam Huruf,
?How do you identify those mentioned in 4.127 with those in 4.3? Where in 4.3 or in its sequence to we find those
"whom you wish to marry (i.e. get married to), but have not given them what was decreed for them" ?How does that achieve the instruction which is
"That you stand for the orphans in equality"?
I think that 42-3 provide the explanation of 4127. In 4127, the word "tanki7oo" cannot mean marry-off, hence in 43, the word "fainki7oo" cannot mean "marry-off" either, but can only mean "marry" (i.e. get married to). The people in 4127 don't want to give the orphans of the widowed women what was written for them (i.e. their inheritance). An example of this would be a relative of the deceased who doesn't want to give the orphans their dues. In such a case, why would that relative of the deceased desire to or even have any say whatsoever in "marrying-off" the widow of his relative? On the contrary, it seems that he would desire to marry her in order to try to keep the money in the family and attempt to consume the orphan's inheritance (his original motivation in 4127).
"That you stand for the orphans in equality" is referring to 42, 45-6.
If you disagree that 4127 is referring to 43 (in addition to 42, 45-6), then can you please tell us what signs 4127 is referring to when it says "wama yutla 3alaykum fee alkitabi fee yataama alnnisaa-i allatee la tu/toonahunna ma kutiba lahunna watarghaboona an tanki7oohunna" ?
-
Salaam Tanveer,
In my first question I thought I had highlighted in colour the part that I particularly wanted to check, but now I realise that it wasn't highlighted. That for me was a preliminary to continue examining. So now I will highlight the part that to start with interested me.
"whom you wish to marry (i.e. get married to), but have not given them what was decreed for them"
As far as I can see "those you wish to marry but have not given them what was decreed for them" is the description of the persons it is referring to, but where are those you wish to marry but have not given them what was decreed for them in 4.3? At first sight I don't see in 4.3 or the following ayas any mention of persons to whom what was decreed for them was not given, unless the fear of not being just is considered as "not having given what was decreed". So that is not so clear to me. I would have to look to find a better fit if it exists.
Concerning my understanding of 4.3 for the moment it is as stated in message 191. In fact I think that so much 4.3 as 4.127 is always collective being also always expressed in the plural, when it is meaning females as when it means males (except when it speaks of the imra' who fears the nushuz of her husband). It is addressing a collectivity. In the series of 4.3 it is doing so directly (ayuhannas) and in 4.127 a collectivity is also addressed by the intermediary of the Prophet.
Salaam
-
First, you are NOT referring to Tanveer's assumption there, but rather your own words in describing what YOU said to support your errorneous theories?
Please ImamQuranonly! Allow me the right to know what I said. You can not know what I said better than I can! I did not mean it the way you think. But you can take it as a failure on my part to express myself clearly enouh if that will please you.
Even though this is clearly addressed to the Prophet, it is clear that to Allah, men can exchange/replace women because of goodness/beauty; and Allah does not condemn this act in itself for ALL believers.
The same blind eye turned to the truth that those whom the Propeht?s oath had were his legal wives. Let me try to reason with you and tanveer once more
The MMA in 236, 7030, 3350, and 3352 are no doubt the legal spouses of those whose oaths own them. The fact that in 3350 God says "We have made halal to you... ma malakat yameenuk" is proof enough. If, in spite of this divine decision, they are not accepted as legally married, God forbid, the Prophet is blamed to be an adulterer.
Yaseen
Although the verbs Nakaha and Ankaha have different conjugations (imperative and other forms) when the verb is taken on its own, when linked to a conjunction such as fa (then) as in 43, the expression ?fainkihoo? (This is the plural form) could either mean then marry off (to? HA) or Then marry. The context will determine the intended meaning. The first form of the verb Nakaha (to marry) can be found in many verses 2221, 2230, 422, 243, 3349, 3353, 6010. The second form of the verb (to marry off) can be found in 2432 and 2827. Ahmed Ali translation reads (verse 2432)?Samia
Fa is not a conjugation. It's a particle/preposition. "fa" has nothing to do whatsoever with the conjugation. It's a prefixed particle that either means "then, as in a succession", or "then as in therefore. In this case it's called "the conditional fa". Depending on its meaning (according to the context) it may or may not have a GRAMMATICAL effect on the verb.
Salaam Samia.
According to yaseen fa is a conjuction; it is not a matter of conjugation. And he seems to be right because you also say it means then, so, consequently?
I looked up the term hamz?alif (it may be written differerently in Arabic). I learned that the alif is dropped when it is uttered as (i) like in the fankihu in 43. Is that the reason why yaseen writes it as fainkihu in order to stress the rule?
Depending on its meaning (according to the context) it may or may not have a GRAMMATICAL effect on the verb.
I would rather learn its effect in meaning than in GRAMMAR. Will you please explain the vocalization of the NKH in 2432 and 43? Would it be correct if the NKH in 43 were vocalized like the NKH in 2432 (Wa ankehu) instead of fainkihu?
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaams all,
First, you are NOT referring to Tanveer's assumption there, but rather your own words in describing what YOU said to support your errorneous theories?
Please ImamQuranonly! Allow me the right to know what I said. You can not know what I said better than I can! I did not mean it the way you think. But you can take it as a failure on my part to express myself clearly enouh if that will please you.
Don't beg. It's not necessary. You have a right to know what you said, but no right to make those try to believe that what you said means something different than what you expressed. There was no ambiguity in the words that you wrote as I pointed out in my last post. I am sure it won't be the first failure by you to express yourself clearly, as I have pointed out before, and as siki has pointed out. It doesn't please me, and I have asked you to be careful to express yourself clearly and given you the benefit of the doubt, to no avail.
Also noted is the fact that you did not offer to CLARIFY what you meant if you expressed yourself unclearly. Are you just lying now to avoid the clear point that you made in your own posts? I notice that you don't address the clear issues that I present to you and only comment on one or two items that you can make a pitiful attempt to answer. Why do you just admit that you were wrong and submit to the guidance of Allah in Al Quran? It is not me or my views that you will be submitting to, but to Allah. Don't let your ego hold you back from guidance.
Even though this is clearly addressed to the Prophet, it is clear that to Allah, men can exchange/replace women because of goodness/beauty; and Allah does not condemn this act in itself for ALL believers.
The same blind eye turned to the truth that those whom the Propeht?s oath had were his legal wives. Let me try to reason with you and tanveer once more
The MMA in 236, 7030, 3350, and 3352 are no doubt the legal spouses of those whose oaths own them. The fact that in 3350 God says "We have made halal to you... ma malakat yameenuk" is proof enough. If, in spite of this divine decision, they are not accepted as legally married, God forbid, the Prophet is blamed to be an adulterer.
Peace,
Hasan AkcayWho said that those MMA were NOT the Prophet's wives? Not me for sure. Cause they are. The Prophet is told that he can not take any more WOMEN EXCEPT MMA. He was not told he could not take any more WIVES. What are you going on about adulterer for now? What does that have to do with any of this Quranic discussion?
The point you are tyring to make here is not even addressing what you quoted me as saying in italics. So what is your point since I never said that MMA are not the Prophet's wives? Do you even know at this point? Or is this just stuff to have some type of answer? Do you ever submit to what Allah has given as guidance if it doesn't suit your preconceived notions?
Maybe I should just do a post with all the proven points that you have not address which clearly destroy your theory of what you believe these ayaat mean. hmm
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
Salaam siki. Instead of resorting to personal bickering like this, please explain your own views and prove the following explanation wrong, referring to the relevant verses from the Quran to support your arguments.
Brother Hassan !
peace be upon you.
I had stopped reasoning with you after realizing that you are too immature and illogical to have any conversation with , but was polite enough not to tell you, thinking that you might realize it yourself, but Imam is right, you can not be allowed a free ride. Because the erroneous theories produced by your faulty logic may mislead some beginners.
Now, let me be very straight with you, Your reasoning is consistently the poorest that I have ever come across in this forum, and your posts are a big distraction in a discussion, specially in this thread, which is about a very serious and delicate issue.
So , once again, I would request you to, please take a break and do some serious studies for a few years, before you want to interpret God's law for Mankind.
peace
siki
-
So , once again, I would request you to, please take a break and do some serious studies for a few years, before you want to interpret God's law for Mankind.
peace
siki
Salaam siki
This is a learning forum, not Darul Iftaa'. No one is obliged to take anybody's interpretation.
-
Salaam Samia.
According to yaseen fa is a conjuction; it is not a matter of conjugation. And he seems to be right because you also say it means then, so, consequently?
Sorry. I misread "conjunction" as "conjugation".
I looked up the term hamz?alif (it may be written differerently in Arabic). I learned that the alif is dropped when it is uttered as (i) like in the fankihu in 43. Is that the reason why yaseen writes it as fainkihu in order to stress the rule?
Depending on its meaning (according to the context) it may or may not have a GRAMMATICAL effect on the verb.
I would rather learn its effect in meaning than in GRAMMAR. Will you please explain the vocalization of the NKH in 2432 and 43? Would it be correct if the NKH in 43 were vocalized like the NKH in 2432 (Wa ankehu) instead of fainkihu?
The difference between the two verbs "unkaha" and "nakaha" is the hamza (the glottal stop) in the beginning. When they are in the imperative, they have the same form (unkih/unkihuu), both beginning with the glottal stop. The difference between the two glottal stops is that one is original (imperative of unkaha) and the other is not (imperative of nakaha). When not preceded by any word, i.e when both verbs are in the beginning of a senence, there's no difference between them. Only when they are preceded by a word or a preposition such as wa or fa, will they have different pronunciation and writing
(imperative of the verb nakaha and is pronounced fankihuu)
(imperative of the verb unkaha and is pronounced fa unkihuu)
You have to first decide what verb it is before you decide how it is written. Were the hamzas written before the diacritical signs? -
Samia, this is for you, if you kindly give your opinion
My understanding of this aya 4.3 had been the traditional, but I hadn't considered carefully before seeing it discussed in this forum. However, when I read the succession of ayas from the yaayuhannas on, everything seems to flow smoothly with injuctions for the welfare of the "nisaa'" addressed to the collectivity. However the interpretation of 4.3 as abruptly addressing males to then carry on addressing the "ayuhannas" just as before and in the same tone, seems to me to be disonnant and interrupting the line it is following. On the other hand the fact that a collectivity could be enjoined to marry its pupils for the general welfare does make sense, so much if the pupils are interpreted as nisaa'-vulnerable or as nisaa'-women. Even, taken in that way, you could even particularize and understand that some males of the "ayuhannas" marry some nisaa' of the ayuhannas.
Salaam
?Could it that part of aya 4.3, if understood as n-k-h, and someboy is marrying the women, in view of the general address and the plural throughout be taken to mean that one or several males could marry at one and the same time, one, two or three or four females without necessarily implying that any one of the male would marry more than one woman.
As I think we know, traditional law has not admitted the simultaneous marriage of more than one wife, only succesive addition of marriages. So is this so that here it is said that those who have a wife may add another, those who have two may add another, etc. or rather what I say in my previous paragraph, that it is not a matter of just one man marrying several, but of several males marrying one each, or could both possibilities be included?
I myself find that after a while of turning all this things in one's mind the mind becomes boggled. So please, no hurry, if it is not clear, just giver your honest relaxed opinion, unless of course you know straight away. Thanks
Salaam
-
Salaam huruf
If the verse stops at two, three or four, of course it can imply that many would marry at the same time. The problem is that it continues to say immediately after "fa'in khiftum alla ta3diluu fawaahida if you fear not to be fair then one (feminine)", showing explicitly that the numbering is meant for the feminine gender.
-
?when both verbs are in the beginning of a senence, there's no difference between them. (Samia)
They both have to be in the beginning because they are imperatives
An-Nisaa 3 fankihu.
Fankihu (fainkihu) ma taaba lekum mine?n nisaa?An-Noor 24 wa ankehu.
Wa ?nkehu?l ayaama minkum?Were the hamzas written before the diacritical signs?
Yes. Please see inkihu and ?nkihu above. My question is Would it be correct if the NKH in 43 were vocalized like the NKH in 2432; that is, would it be correct in grammar and meaning if the sentence in 43 began Wa ankehu ma taaba l?kum min??n nisaa??
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Salaam huruf
If the verse stops at two, three or four, of course it can imply that many would marry at the same time. The problem is that it continues to say immediately after "fa'in khiftum alla ta3diluu fawaahida if you fear not to be fair then one (feminine)", showing explicitly that the numbering is meant for the feminine gender.
That is clear, that it says one, but we are taking it also that it is n-k-h we are hipothesizing, so anyway the numbers would have to be feminine, also two and three and four, but what I mean is from where do we get that when it talks about one, two, three or four, it must be only one man man who marries all of them, two or three or four. Aren't we taking for granted that this ta3diluu it is between several wives that are married to the same man, when that is precisely what we are trying to determine? Are we sure it is not ta3diluu between several orphans or women in general, in the general context in which it is dealing with the situation. Because there is also this question of simultaneity.
In economical terms, if you feel that you cannot give their entitlement to the orphans, how can marrying the mother of the orphans or the grown up orphans yourself help you economically? First youhave to settle the 'ujur, then youhave to give to every orphan their dues. If you could not do that without marrying them, less still you can do it marrying them, since you would assume all the payments to them or to the mother and on top of it you would have to support them and pay 'ujur (for one, for two, for three, for four?). If I understand the ayuhannas as a collective, which must be, I may take it that if some of you marry some of them, in any number convenient, some other of you may be better able to afford looking after the the other orphans, because the burden would be better distributed. We must bear in mind that nothing is telling us that in this aya the "ayuhannas" has stopped including women.
I mean in principle and in general I had no quarrel with regulating actual poligamy when the social situation was such that it would be an improvement for the general and particular welfare, but this particular aya, which I, like most people, took before for granted that it meant having several wives, seems to me now not so clear that it means so. And if taken in that sense seems to me to not flow with the other ayas before and after.
Salaam
-
As Salaamu Alaika siki,
Continue to express your feelings because that is all that he is doing also. You should also add huruf to this description. Both have turned all their attention to Samia to see if she can give them some hope from the arabic grammar that they may still have any valid point left. Unfortunately, she will not be able to. I am sure they are confused and disappointed because they know deep within themselves that all of their feelings and emotions about how polygyny is a harm to women are WRONG! (if they are to have faith in Allah and Al Quran). Let them be, they have left all reasonable discussion and acceptance of Quranic evidence if it proves their positions wrong.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
Brother Hassan !
peace be upon you.
I had stopped reasoning with you after realizing that you are too immature and illogical to have any conversation with , but was polite enough not to tell you, thinking that you might realize it yourself, but Imam is right, you can not be allowed a free ride. Because the erroneous theories produced by your faulty logic may mislead some beginners.
Now, let me be very straight with you, Your reasoning is consistently the poorest that I have ever come across in this forum, and your posts are a big distraction in a discussion, specially in this thread, which is about a very serious and delicate issue.
So , once again, I would request you to, please take a break and do some serious studies for a few years, before you want to interpret God's law for Mankind.
peace
siki
-
Peace all,
Pardon my surprise because of Br. siki and Br. IQO's post. My learned brothers, just so that I understand what your understanding is about polygyny in the Book, what is (or are) the exact condition(s) when polygyny is allowed? There is apparently a very specific condition. Can you please tell in the simplest words that are possible for you what you understand of that specific condition (without quoting any verses for the moment)?
I would really appreciate it if you keep your reply specific and to the point, without any open-endedness.
Peace
-
Salaams Sharp001,
You seemed to very judgemental in your "surprisedness". What exactly are you surprised about? And you made your point with your previous posts about behavior, and obviously didn't listen to any of the responses, but stop posting with this "I am so righteous" attitude. If you want to participate in the subject of the post, stop trying to judge and analize everyone posting and do some research and post some points of view.
But just to answer your question, the answer to it is already in my posts. The condition for polygyny is that the man thinks he can be fair to the women that he will marry. Of course the women that marry him have to agree to do so. As I pointed out in a previous post here, it seems to be no problem to Allah even if men marry more than one women simply because of their goodness/beauty.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
Peace all,
Pardon my surprise because of Br. siki and Br. IQO's post. My learned brothers, just so that I understand what your understanding is about polygyny in the Book, what is (or are) the exact condition(s) when polygyny is allowed? There is apparently a very specific condition. Can you please tell in the simplest words that are possible for you what you understand of that specific condition (without quoting any verses for the moment)?
I would really appreciate it if you keep your reply specific and to the point, without any open-endedness.
Peace
-
Salaams Sharp001,
You seemed to very judgemental in your "surprisedness". What exactly are you surprised about? And you made your point with your previous posts about behavior, and obviously didn't listen to any of the responses, but stop posting with this "I am so righteous" attitude. If you want to participate in the subject of the post, stop trying to judge and analize everyone posting and do some research and post some points of view.
Salaam to you as well, Br. IQO,
I apologize if I sounded condescending in my post. I will heed to your advice and make a comprehensive study, as much as I am capable of, of all posts in this thread and then have a (hopefully) meaningful post next time.
But just to answer your question, the answer to it is already in my posts. The condition for polygyny is that the man thinks he can be fair to the women that he will marry. Of course the women that marry him have to agree to do so. As I pointed out in a previous post here, it seems to be no problem to Allah even if men marry more than one women simply because of their goodness/beauty.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
From you answer above, I assume that first underlined condition that you mentioned is from 43. Allow me to reproduce one of your posts in another thread in this reference
(Quote)
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.The first condition here is to those who have the guardianship over the orphan and their property. Clearly continuing from the previous ayat, fearing that you will not deal justly with the orphans is talking about when they have attained marriageable age and it is time to restore their property to them; therefore if the warning issued about properly restoring their property is something you fear doing correctly, another command is given.
What is the correlation to giving their property back when they attain the age of marriage and the command to marry two and three and four? All reason and logic clearly make this correlation to be speaking to the "men" that could then marry an orphan girl that has now reached marriageable age. If he fears that by marrying her he may transgress the bounds of restoring her property properly as Allah has instructed, then he should marry what is good to him from the women, two and three and four; women that would not obviously included the ones being discussed as a special group. Mothers of orphans is not a correct translation and only fits the needs of those who dislike what Allah has ordered. Also you can use marry or marry off, as many prefer to do in this ayat, and it doesn't change the clarity of what is being said; nor does using two or twos, etc. What is clear, is that "wa" after two and three, means "and, by or plus (as can be understood from arabic when using numbers)", and not "or". "Or" is "aw" as is also used in this same ayat to clearly distinguish between the two terms.
Here, those who would otherwise marry also an orphan girl that has not become marriagable age, are clearly commanded to marry TWO and THREE and FOUR. Notice this is a command, and it starts with TWO, not ONE. One is only given as an option to the conditional phrase of "if you fear you will not be just with them". So one is the exception to the command for men who fear they can cause injustice. The natural and normal marriage command in Al Quran is to marry two and three and four. I wont go into every detail here, because I am sure we will have to discuss it further.
(end Quote)Okay, so the first condition is that there be guardianship of orphan's property which I got from the first underlined selection above. Following which 43 mentions (from your post quoted above)
"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four..."
Now the second underlined selection... you have assumed that the man (who obviously is the guardian of the orphan's wealth) wants to marry the orphan because of which he fears that he may not be able to remit to the orphan girl which is rightfully hers, therefore he should marry two, three and four. How did you arrive at that assumption that the man want to marry the orphan? If you are going to say that verse 46 mentions "orphans reaching age of marriage", then I'd say that it is just what it says, reaching the age of maturity and sound judgement. You said in your post
(Quote)
This ayat is critical for understanding that the orphans talked about in ayat 2 are not children anymore, but are being spoken of as their previous condition of being orphan children, but now reaching the age of maturity in marriage and having sound judgement. Further instructions and clarifications of ayat 2 are specified here clearly.
(end Quote)So now, at this age (Balagha) the orphans are able to decide for themselves how to use their wealth and make their own life decisions. Apparently 46 just says that one should remit the orphan's rightful property back to them when there are of mature age. How one gets the understanding that the guardian had even before she reached the age of maturity decided to marry her himself and then realised at her maturity that he might not be fair to her with regard to remitting her rightful property is beyond me, for the moment. Please correct me if I have implied something wrong. English is not my first language.
For the third underlined selection, you seem to have overlooked that "those who would otherwise marry also an orphan girl that has not become marriagable age" are only those who have guardianship over the orphan's property, which you established as the first condition of the verse. Therefore, the command for the marriage to two, three and four are only limited to them and not the "natural and normal marriage command in Al Quran".
2432 says "Marry those among you who are single, and the virtuous ones among your male and female servants if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things." Tell me something. If I am reading this verse from a believing woman's point of view, who can she marry? Oh, I'm sorry... Ignore this question. I forgot that the translation that you accept for this verse is marry off and not just "marry".
Just to tell everybody here the reason for my surprise in my previous post, was that people are so quick to label others as judgmental, wrong, following their own desires, misinterpreting, misleading, corruptors, unknowledgable, baseless (and the list goes on) that they never even consider putting themselves under the "Criterion's" microscope and scrutinizing their own claims. My posts about behaviour remain as they are and I try my utmost to abide by them. But I couldn't help expressing my thoughts, when I saw that rather than respecting another person's understanding of the Book, people are ganging up on them just because they don't see eye-to-eye. I am sorry but I just don't understand this.
Peace
-
?when both verbs are in the beginning of a senence, there's no difference between them. (Samia)
They both have to be in the beginning because they are imperatives
No, they do not have to. If there is a "fa" or a "wa" before them, they are not in the beginning of the sentence.
Verse 43 fankihuu does not carry a hamza. Therefore it is from the verb "nakaha". HHere the verse says Marry whomever accepts of women...
Verse 2432 fa unkihu carries a hamza. Therefore it is from verb "ankaha". The verse says Have the single and the righteous married (to your females). -
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
This translation is too self-contradictory to be taken seriously
(1)Marry women of your choice... Women are human beings like you. They also have feelings like you such as love, hate, need... And they have the right to make their choice just as you do. So if it just happens that you are not their choice and refuse to marry you, what becomes of the command "Marry the women of your choice"?
(2)women of your choice, Two or three or four... These are counting numbers, which do not correespond to the numbers God uses in the verse. He says masna aw sulaasa aw rubaa'a, as He does in Al-Faatir 1
All praise is due to God, Originator of the heavens and the earth, who makes the angels messengers with two wings or three wings or four wings -ajne3ate masnaa aw sulaasa aw rubaa'a.
God did not give an angel one wing first, another wing some units of time later, a third one still some time later... He gave each angel the set number of wings at one and the same time. That is what masnaa aw sulaasa aw rubaa'a mean. So a man who is told to NKH the nisaa', say, sulaasa is supposed to NKH all three of them at one and the same time. Can he do that?
(3)but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them)... The them is obviously other women than the orphans. In 46 God orders you to return the orphans' possessions to them. You have to obey God. After that the orphans are economically independent of you. It is none of their concern how many other women you marry. Neither is it your business what your old orphans do with their possessions and with their lives. So what is the fuss for?
If NKH means marry the women yourself all of this nonsense (or in tanveeer's words, illogic) is poured into God's Book despite the fact that no discrepancies can be found in it (482).
But if NKH means marry them each to another man, the discrepancies disappear
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry off the women, who allow you, in twos or threes or fours; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (dependents) that your oaths possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from economic hardship.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay -
Sallam Samia. Pleaase remember what I have told you before I looked up the term hamz?alif. I learned that it is dropped when it is uttered as (i) like in the fankihu in 43.
The fankihu is actually fainkihu. In 43 there sure is a hamza in this sense.
Peace,
Hasan Akcay